IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (120) RA-CW-495-2025 CM-16411-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-29471-2025 Date of Decision : November 10, 2025 Sushil Kumar .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI Present: Lt. Col. P.K. Saran, Adovcate, with Mr. Vishnu Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Sonia Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel, for respondent-UOI. (joined through VC)

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J. (ORAL)

RA-CW-495-2025 Present review application has been filed for recalling the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure R-1) by which, the main writ petition was not pressed, with liberty to avail appropriate remedy before the Civil Court to prove the factual disputes which are being raised in the present petition.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner submits that he has instructions to argue the main petition on merits, and therefore the order dated

30.09.2025 be recalled.

Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

Ms. Sonia Sharma, learned Senior Panel Counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-UOI. She raises no objection to the grant of the prayer made in the present application.

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 30.09.2025 (Annexure R-1) is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and status. On the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

CM-16411-CWP-2025 As prayed for, the application is allowed.

CWP-29471-2025

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order of discharge passed against the petitioner by the authorities dated 18.09.2020 (Annexure P-2) based on the alleged recommendation dated 31.08.2020 by which he was discharged from the military service that the appellant was “Unlikely to become an efficient Soldier” as well as to the order passed by the Tribunal vide which, discharge order has been upheld by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 30.07.2025 (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though, the petitioner had availed more than the allowed chances for clearing the Physical Proficiency Test and the Commanding Officer’s Drill Square Test but he should not have been discharged from service even the petitioner had passed the required test i.e. PPT Test on 17.09.2020 before respondent No.4, which was video recorded. Rather, his request of availing two more chances to clear the same should have been accepted, as the respondents have been giving such chances to the others, which have not been given to the petitioner, causing prejudice.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said aspect has not been dealt with the Tribunal while dismissing the claim of the petitioner.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

5. It may be noticed that once, it is a conceded fact that a Soldier is required to pass Physical Proficiency Test and the Commanding Officer’s Drill Square Test, that too within the number of allowed chances but the petitioner has not been able to clear the said test, hence the authorities were within their right to discharge such recruits, who according to them will not be able to prove a good Soldier. Tribunal has considered all the facts and then upheld the order of discharge.

6. Further, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner that other Soldiers have been granted more chances to clear the test should also have been considered in favour of the petitioner as well, it is noticed that the same depends upon the conduct of a recruit while undergoing the training. A chart has been given by the respondents with regard to the conduct of the petitioner while undergoing training.

7. A bare perusal of the record would show that the petitioner has also been awarded rigorous imprisonme